Trials@uspto.gov
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 23
`Entered: July 29, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., NISSAN NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`_______________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Tel: 571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`Paper 23
`Entered: July 29, 2014
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_______________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`_______________
`
`SUBARU OF AMERICA, INC., TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA,
`INC., AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., NISSAN NORTH
`AMERICA, INC., FORD MOTOR COMPANY, JAGUAR LAND ROVER
`NORTH AMERICA, LLC, and VOLVO CARS OF NORTH
`AMERICA, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`CRUISE CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`_______________
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`_______________
`
`Before JOSIAH C. COCKS, HYUN J. JUNG, and GEORGE R. HOSKINS,
`Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`HOSKINS, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`ORDER
`Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing
`37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`On July 2, 2014, we issued a Decision to Institute inter partes review
`
`in this proceeding (Paper 19, hereafter “Decision to Institute”). On July 10,
`
`2014, Patent Owner filed a Motion for Rehearing of the Decision to Institute
`
`(Paper 22, hereafter “Motion for Rehearing” or “Mot.”). The Motion for
`
`Rehearing contends our institution of inter partes review was an abuse of
`
`discretion because the Petition and the associated papers failed to comply
`
`with 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10. See Mot. 1, 5. For the following
`
`reasons, we deny the Motion for Rehearing.
`
`The Motion Does Not Comply with 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`Our rules require that any request for rehearing must specifically
`
`identify all matters the party believes the Board misapprehended or
`
`overlooked, and further identify “the place where each matter was
`
`previously addressed in a motion, an opposition, or a reply.” 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.71(d) (2013). The Motion for Rehearing fails to identify where the
`
`issues concerning 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 and § 42.10 were previously addressed.
`
`These matters could have been raised in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Response (Paper 15), but were not. Patent Owner attempted to raise these
`
`matters in its Motion for Joinder (Paper 17). However, we denied that
`
`portion of the Motion for Joinder as an unauthorized motion. See Decision
`
`re Motion for Joinder (Paper 21), 2. The reference to “a motion” in
`
`Rule 42.71(d) applies to authorized motions, not unauthorized motions.
`
`Thus, the Motion for Rehearing is improper under 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(d)
`
`(2013).
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`The Petition Complies with Rules 42.8 and 42.10
`
`Nonetheless, we will also consider the merits of the Motion for
`
`Rehearing. The Motion requests reconsideration of our Decision to Institute
`
`because the Petition is defective for failing to identify counsel properly, and
`
`that alleged defect was never corrected. See Mot. 1, 5. In particular, our
`
`rules require that if a party is represented by counsel, then (1) that counsel
`
`must be identified, and (2) the party must designate a lead counsel and a
`
`back-up counsel who can conduct business on behalf of the lead counsel.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.8(b)(3), 42.10(a) (2013). Our rules further require “[a]
`
`power of attorney must be filed with the designation of counsel.” Id.
`
`§ 42.10(b).
`
`We are not persuaded that those rules were violated. The Petition
`
`identifies Matthew Satchwell as lead counsel for Petitioner in this
`
`proceeding, and five other practitioners (Steven Reynolds, William Mandir,
`
`John Caracappa, Matthew Moore, and Wab Kadaba) as back-up counsel.
`
`See Pet. 3–4. We therefore conclude the Petition complies with Rules
`
`42.8(b)(3) and 42.10(a).
`
`Patent Owner points out, correctly, that each one of the various
`
`Powers of Attorney for the seven companies bringing the Petition (Papers 2–
`
`4, 6, and 8–10) is granted to only one or two of the six practitioners listed as
`
`counsel in the Petition. In others words, none of the Powers of Attorney
`
`filed in this proceeding is granted to all six practitioners. That fact,
`
`however, does not nullify the naming of the six practitioners as lead and
`
`back-up counsel in the Petition, having all the rights and responsibilities
`
`which apply to such roles. We disagree with Patent Owner’s assertion that a
`
`company’s failure to name a specific practitioner in a Power of Attorney as
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`filed in the present proceeding means that practitioner lacks authority to
`
`represent the company in this proceeding. See Mot. 4–5. Instead, we accept
`
`as true the representation that the naming of lead and back-up counsel in the
`
`Petition implies: all named counsel are duly authorized to represent the
`
`Petitioner (i.e., all seven companies bringing the Petition) in this proceeding
`
`as circumstances require.
`
`Accordingly, it is:
`
`Conclusion
`
`ORDERED that Patent Owner’s Motion for Rehearing is DENIED.
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2014-00279
`Patent 6,324,463
`
`
`FOR PETITIONER:
`
`Matthew D. Satchwell
`Steven J. Reynolds
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`matthew.satchwell@dlapiper.com
`Subaru-CCT-IPR@dlapiper.com
`
`
`William H. Mandir
`SUGHRUE MION PLLC
`wmandir@sughrue.com
`
`
`John M. Caracappa
`STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP
`jcaracap@steptoe.com
`
`
`Matthew J. Moore
`LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
`matthew.moore@lw.com
`
`
`Wab Kadaba
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP
`wkadaba@kilpatricktownsend.com
`
`
`FOR PATENT OWNER:
`
`John R. Kasha
`Kelly L. Kasha
`KASHA LAW LLC
`john.kasha@kashalaw.com
`kelly.kasha@kashalaw.com
`
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
